The New York Times' Op-Ed section rejected a written piece by Sen. John McCain about the war and suggested an approach for a second draft.

According to the Drudge Report, which first reported the Times' denial of the essay, McCain's essay was a counter argument to an essay by Sen. Barack Obama, which the Times published. Obama's essay advocated a phased redeployment of combat troops.

In McCain's essay, the Arizona senator said he was "dismayed that [Obama] never talks about winning the war--only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."

Times' Op-Ed page editor David Shipley wrote an e-mail to Michael Goldfarb at the McCain camp with a response to the submitted essay. Shipley served in Bill Clinton's administration from 1995 until 1997 as senior presidential speechwriter and special assistant to the president, according to his profile at the Times website.

This is the e-mail, according to Kate Phillips at the Times' political blog, The Caucus:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain's essay.

I'd be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy.

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator's draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley

In a statement today, Times' editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal said the paper's standard procedure is to go back and forth with the author on a submission to the Op-Ed page. He also said that the paper looks forward to publishing McCain's views.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said, "John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of The New York Times."

Comments

Wrong wing media is already characterizing this as the liberal NYT refusing to publish a McCain editorial after publishing an Obama editorial. Clearly the NYT is eager to publish McCain's views and invites him to articulate how he defines victory in Iraq and how he plans to achieve it. Will McCain take the bait?

What a bunch of BS. The media could not possibly be more blatant in its preferance for Obama! It has now crossed over into intentional activism for one candidate over another. Media bias? How about just remaining ethical!

The non-freedom loving libs act like they love freedom. What a bunch of whining hypocrites! If it wasn't for Drudge, we would have no idea what is going on, as the trib. et al editorialize every story.

So, the NYT asked McCain's speechwriters for something original rather than the same old canned b.s., and McCain can't do it? Sounds like he wants to trot out the tired old "liberal media" complaint rather than actually offer a new idea. Imagine that.

Look at the wrongwingers whining again about the "liberal media." I don't think that they even bothered to read the piece that they are commenting on. The editor of the NYT says that he's EAGER to print an op/ed by McCain, he just wants him to write a better piece that will give the readers some new information about his position and isn't just taking whacks at Obama.

I have my quarrels with the NY TIMES (funny how they never report news of any attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney and didn't report that McGovern wrote an op-ed piece for the WASHINGTON POST advocating just that). But I don't think it's "traitorous" or "hypocritcal" to ask for something more than canned generalities from McCain. McCain is posing, and the TIMES has the right not to provide a platform for posing. McCain can get his friends at the WASHINGTON POST (that bastion of journalistic standards) to publish whatever he wants, and then his friends will claim it's news. News, however, is what is new. McCain is just repeating his same tired stuff, and it is no more persuasive in print than it is on the stump.

This isn't about the WAR to oust Saddam Hussein. This is about something else.

When McCain ADMITS that to himself, he will be on the road to recovery.

The war vs. terrorism NEVER should have gone through Iraq. That war should have started and ended on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

And it should have only ended after we captured or killed Osama bin Laden and his No. 2.

The current problems in Iraq have NOTHING to do with THAT war. What we're trying to do in Iraq is put together a country that was pretty much held together by Hussein's iron-fist. The SURGE is proof positive that the only thing that will be able to keep it together is an iron fist.

We know we cannot sustain the SURGE either economically or militarily. And guess what, so do the Iraqis.

So the ONLY thing we have left to do is to appoint a dictator who will be able to replace the OLD Saddam Hussein - the same Saddam Hussein who was photographed shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld.

and of course if you're used to watching fox "news" and listening to rush, it's an entirely foreign idea to you that a journalistic media outlet would not just be a party mouthpiece, and would have any journalistic standards or integrity whatsoever. you're used to getting your information from the biggest shills on earth, and you must assume that every media outlet works that way. and of course you're unable to distinguish that obama's piece actually offered new and strategic information, not just canned b.s. platitudes, otherwise known as your bread-and-butter. it takes someone with a decent amount of intelligence to recognize that obama's piece was more than just stump fluff, and mccain's piece was stump fluff at its finest. however it takes no intelligence at all to proclaim this a liberal hit job.

McCain's position is that we should talk about "winning the war". How can that be? How can an undeclared war, with unclear combatants, be won?

This entire bogus "war on terror" is no different from the "war on drugs". What would constitute "winning" the "war on drugs"? It's an impossible question to answer. A faux war cannot have a victory, except in a vague political sense. And that is what this is all about--vague politics.

If the answer to winning the war on drugs is "Just say 'No' ", what could possibly be the answer to winning the "war on terror" except "Just say 'we win' "?

Typical right wing freak out. The NYT justifiably won't McCain's attack piece because the op eds are not the place for tit-for-tat bickering.

Instead, they invite McCain to expand on his plan for victory in Iraq, and the senile old coot can't do it. Can't even figure out how to have someone write it for him. It has to suck to be a Republican and be forced to support such a pitiful candidate.

I don't understand the problem. Why should it be hard for McCain to define victory, since he thinks that is what is necessary in Iraq? Tell us what victory looks like! And if we have already achieved "victory" then bring our troops home!
Don't tell me the NYT is "liberal" when they pay good money to William Kristol. Of course, his columns probably couldn't pass muster either, if the editor actually read them before publication.

Finally, the Times shows journalistic backbone to those who lie about war and cost this country the lives of its 'less valued' young people, our economy, and our very soul.
An 'opposing opinion' lacking fact is of what journalistic value, exactly?
Let's hear it for brave Mr. Shipley!
(Too bad Mr. Apple didn't do the same during the Reagan/Bush 1 war on poor little Nicaragua and El Slave-ador!)

Gregory, you are on point. Susan Sontag couldn't--didn't--say it any better.
It was apparent to me from the beginning. Unfortunately, Swamp didn't exist then.
Barack said it, clearly, in Oct. 2002.
Interestingly, he wasn't, according to the NYer article accompanying the infamous cover, the speaker of choice. He was a pinch hitter.
What a pinch hitter!
I heard that speech on WBEZ in Chicago and thought back to the first time, back in 1978, I was driving through the prairie counties in Illinois on a Saturday afternoon and heard an amazing radio announcer. His name was never revealed in the broadcast. I wondered, who is that guy???? He's amazing.
Of course, it was Garrison Keilor.
I imagined people surfing the dial, coming upon that WBEZ broadcast in Oct. 02, wondering, WHO IS THAT GUY?

Of course, I don't expect anything less from the official sponsor of the Obama campaign (read the NYT). I guess these people don't subscribe to the notion of "equal time". Oh, I forgot, this is the same "newspaper" that gave Moveon.org some huge discount on an ad attacking General Petraeus. So much for "journalistic integrity".

Shipley is an active Democratic party hack, a former Clinton speechwriter. Why would he be fair to McCain? The New York Times is just another left wing newspaper that wants Obama to win the election and America to lose the War on Terror. Does this overt, blatant bias really surprise anyone?

McCain, a cry baby? Answer the questions we all want answered, or shut up. I'm sick of dumping my dimes into Iraq. We need to keep putting (diplomatic) pressure on Iran to keep the Badrs at bay, put the Iraqis back in charge, and get to the business of Afghanistan and Bin Laden. So tell me, McCainiacs, how much more blood and treasure on a wound we have patched to the point where the patient needs to stand on his own at least as well as the patients who have received shoddy VA care once they got back from defending "saving" Iraq.

Canned generalities is generous for the tripe that the Times let Obama pass along. There are reasons that 49% of the country thinks the media will do whatever they can to help Obama (according to latest Rasmussen poll). This double standard is one of them.

I thought it wasn't much of a story AT FIRST. Who doesn't already know this paper is one sided. I don't think they're making a lot of money now days, but it's hard to fix something you ENJOY, so let them continue on ha.

After hearing a bit more, I learned that the problem McCain had, is that the NYT told him they wouldn't print HIS letter without a TIME LINE. That was unbelievable bias. I respect McCain for standing by his beliefs. Makes me wonder what Obama gave in to, or worse yet...OWES THEM, so he could get his letter printed.

people dont understand that if we stop our dependence on oil all the terrorist groups can be funded...thats how u stop the war on terror....ur trying to fight geurilla tactics in iraq and afghanistan we will be there forever...maybe thats what government wants?

Hopefully there are some readers out here who can think critically. After scanning the childish posts about the unfairness of the editors at the New York Times I reread your quote from the editor's letter. The editor was trying to get beyond the surface level slogan of we must win to a substantive level of analysis.
When the United States pulled out of Vietnam the government declared that we had won the war, something that even then seen incredible given the images everyone had seen of the US fleeing the country.
Going forward a debate should expand understanding not just repeat the old simplistic appeals. While there may have been partisan motives what the editors did was laudable.

Let me understand: "it would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate," and so in other words, McCain would have to come up with a plan like Obama's. Precisely the point. His plan is NOT like Obama's. Elementary, you cannot compare the two, so NYT, get over it, this OP ED must be allowed to run as is with it's different format. It's critical to McCain's strategy, else he must compromise. NO FAIR NYT if you truly believe this is a FORUM for airing their views even if it's the same same. You cannot make McCain come up with what he doesn't want, that's the ENTIRE POINT!

Teresa, global warming isn't a "prediction". It's happening. Some corporate paid 'scientists' and spoiled, head-in-the-sand folks might dispute that humans are helping to cause it, but it's a fact that it is indeed happening and could have disastrous consequences for this planet and human life in the future is not in dispute.

The last time I checked, WE haven't won anything. McCain is just as confused as Bush. If we have won a war then why are our troops still over in Iraq and Afghanistan. NYT is giving him an opportunity to elaborate on he "vague" essay and basically back it up with a timeline. He is refusing to rewrite it. So what does that tell you about McCain...he doesn't have an answer to when the troops are going to be withdrawed and he seems to not even care. Vote him into office and it is the Bush years all over again!

I don't doubt Global Warming or Cooling, however, there is an on going debate about which stage we are in. It runs in cycles and I can assure you they have no way of knowing when one will begin or one will end.

Volcano and other natural occurances do more damage than people could ever do.

Crud-now I sent you that info on Global Warming didn't you read it HA!

Look up. YouTube George Carlin on saving the planet

They wouldn't print up all this FLUFF on Obama in these articles if there wasn't a crowd out there who is fascinated by it. All I'm asking for is BALANCED FLUFF ha!

t, you really don't believe in anthropomorphic warming? we are, in fact, warming. the problem the deniers have is that according to the natural climate change argument, the planet is supposed to be going through a cooling cycle right now. i've read plenty from the denier side. it usually takes a matter of minutes to tie them back to exxon-mobile, the only oil company that doesn't believe in man-made gw. that or they try to make a case on the tiny percentage of anomalies in the science, all the while ignoring the overwhelming peer-reviewed science that supports man made global warming. nobody denies the effects of natural disasters like volcanoes and i fail to see what that has to do with the explosive growth of co2 in our atmosphere since the industrial age. don't forget, sharks don't get cancer.

Crud- I spent a lot of time reading about this subject quite some time ago, until I was satisfied with my beliefs. The thing that probably bothered me the most was what I read about how impossible it is to get accurate ground readings (a farce). I copied something for you to read. I'm sure it is info that I went for long ago.

Co-2 only goes up so high and then comes back down and then plants obsorb it and turn it into oxygen. We produce Co2 every time we breath. This is nothing more than basic Earth Science.

Here is the Information:

The average global temperature has been rising since the "Little Ice Age" that occured around the 1400s. Disregarding that dip, the average temperature has been rising for nearly 6,000 years. Medieval Warm Period
The global warming trend graph shows that there is a change of about one degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. We know thermometers were not accurate to less than a degree at the beginning of the last century. The US, which generally had the best thermometers, shows less warming than the average worldwide temperature change. [1]

If carbon dioxide is the cause for global warming, what is the cause for Mars warming?

It has been shown that CO2 levels in the past (70 million years ago) have been as high as ten times the current amount. Also, the coldest time period in the Earth's history coincided with the highest concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere ever.

Only 3.4% of CO2 introduced every year to atmosphere is produced by man [2].

In the 70s scientists panicked over a temperature shift that would cause "drastic climate change" and "destroy life as we know it." The problem was global cooling.
Arctic ice may be receding in certain locations, but antarctic ice is increasing. The southern hemisphere is much colder. Which is consisent with the effects that would be expected to be caused by fluctuations in solar activity - more intense sunlight, as well as warming the Earth, blocks out cosmic rays. Cosmic rays have the effect of increasing cloud, so blocking them reduces cloud cover and exacerbates the warming effect, except in Antarctica where the ice is whiter, and a better reflector, than the clouds would be.

The only piece of data that correlates a global rise in temperature with carbon dioxide is the "hockey stick" graph, which has been proven to be invalid. No computer model has ever been accurate for a time period as short as 4 years (El nino) even on a macroscopic scale.

Over the past several million years, for as long as there has been a large land mass (Antarctica) over one polar region, the climate has followed a cycle of 100 thousand year ice ages, interspersed with 15-20 thousand year warm periods. Cycles within this cycle caused the "little ice age" amongst other effects. "Global Warming" has been ongoing since the end of the last ice age, 18 thousand years ago and current temperatures are approximately the same as those reached at the peak of the previous warm period - shortly before it returned to a state of ice age for 100 thousand years.
Satellite-based temperature readings are more accurate than ground-based readings as they are not affected by local weather or the heatsink created by urban sprawl. These readings have shown a slight warming, then cooling, then warming again in America in recent times with no discernible, overall trend.
Water vapour, often omitted from charts intended to show the evil of man's CO2 production, is a far greater contributor to the greenhouse effect than any other gas in the atmosphere

*the weather man can't even tell you with accuracy what the weather will be tomorrow let alone 10 years from now.

t, whiskey asked you earlier what was up with the "ha". You seemed confused by it, yet your original post at 5:09 am said: "....so let them continue on ha." Like many of your posts, you seem to crack yourself up. I do get a kick out of it though.
anyha, for simplicity sake, here are some answers for you:

Of all the Nothings turned into Somethings in this screwy campaign, this one takes the cake. Anyone who writes for a living - and many of us who do not - understands you don't just send a manuscript to a publication and expect them to recognize its brilliance and publish it unedited. (Well, of course you expect them to, but they never do.) You go through this "you should cut this" and "you need to emphasize that" and "that third paragraph needs to die" sort of dance with one or more editors until the real deal gets hammered out. McCain's had eight (I believe) op-eds published by the Times, so he knows this. His handlers surely know this. Obama's piece went through the same process; everybody's piece goes through the same process. The NYT did not reject his article. They were working with him to get it published. He rejected them, apparently to include the incident in his current "The Media is So Mean To Me!!!" tour. Some leader he'll make.

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)